Taking photos is one of those things I used to think was easy. It is: you just point the camera and take a picture. But then some photos look so much better than others and some of the reasons or obvious and others less so. I was looking at these two images I captured last night.
The photos were taken inside St Pancras Old Church in Camden last night. I had already anticipated that the light would be low and so had set my camera’s ISO to 1000. The camera is a small Canon GX7 that fits into your pocket.
Even with the ISO set high and the aperture quite wide at f/2.5 the shutter speed was still slow at 1/8th of a second and 1/20th in Aperture priority programme, so required a steady hand. I set the camera to burst mode to ensure I captured a series of images at a time and the camera handles this quite well in terms of processing images, but again a steady hand is required for such slow shutter speeds.
When home I looked at all the images (25) and selected these two as they reflected the evening’s activities and ambiance quite well. I tend not to go though and remove technically poor images when reviewing shots as sometimes they can offer something a technically good image cannot, such as a sense of the event or activity.
Of course, all the way through the process choices are made: aspect ratios, depth of field, colour treatments etc. all require consideration. That process gives me a lot of satisfaction – in the craft of creating a good image.
PS. It’s funny how much better the images look on Flickr than on here. I wonder what sort of rendering and or coding issues cause that difference?
anomiepete 